Monday, May 09, 2016

A young girl brings a letter home
from school from her parents. So far, so everyday, anywhere.

Except it’s from the Taliban,
vowing execution for her ‘infidel’ father.

His crime? Risking his life – and
those of his family and friends – for British forces. Only to find that ‘help
for heroes’ only apparently goes so far.

Whether morally – after putting
themselves in danger not only as targets but ‘traitors’ – or merely
pragmatically – why should any conflict-zone local help help-denying Britain in
future? – the Afghan interpreters’ case (raised way back when by Metro) should
seem open-and-shut.

Experience
here both in Iraq and Afghanistan showed all too vividly just how dependent not
merely mere journalists but the forces themselves are on local ‘terps’.

Much was
made by the MoD about how dwindling British troops in Helmand were not
fighting, but facilitating – literally bridge-building and overseeing as the
Afghan National Army assumes control.

Yet those
‘shura’ meetings, everyone cross-legged on rugs insisting ‘after you’ with cups
of chai, only occurred thanks to muttering intermediaries - no matter how many
odd words of local lingo got added to swottiest officers’ repertoires.

British
troops, for all unenviable dangers when in the field and sacrificed home lives
left behind, at least ‘only’ fought Afghan terms of between six and nine
months.

Their local
guides knew they were there for life, whether in service or living in fear of
its aftermath – not only for themselves, but their families once their alleged
collaboration becomes known.

And yet, and yet: ministers and
judges claim that unless you were lending a hand – that is, voice – in only the
last months right up until the UK’s shabbily-eventual final retreat from
Helmand, forget the slightest remembrance.

Two translators who fear Taliban reprisals were rejected on Monday
in an attempt to challenge the government’s limited assistance package.

The High Court ruled last May in favour of a government assistance
scheme which only offers refuge to those still employed by the British army in
December 2012 - a decade after the initial Afghan invasion.

And that verdict has now been upheld by the Appeal Court, to
campaigners’ fury - while government officials expressed their own indignation
at the prospect of a further challenge.

Afghanistan
is a land in which many inhabitants feel shifting allegiances, understandably
alienated by Taliban strictures yet also uneasy at Western intrusion and
imposition – and, in at least a few cases, willing to favour the best-paying at
any moment in time.

All the more
reason, then, to respect those lending bilingual services to
apparently-benevolent occupiers, even if isolating from families – even when
even doing that barely lessens any risk.

Those
‘terps’ out there would never talk out of turn, yet only now are a few out of
service speaking out – as well they might.

Law firm Leigh Day, leading the legal challenge, justly insisted
the options on offer to Afghan interpreters were far less generous than those provided
to counterparts during the Iraq war.

Government backers point to Iraq apparently being even
more tumultuously unsafe in the aftermath of Allied incursions – and also a
promise to Afghanistan’s also-volatile government not to encourage an apparent ‘brain-drain’
towards elsewhere.

Those Iraqi staff, then – also selfless if now slightly less
unfortunate - were promised indefinite leave to live in Britain or one-off
packages of financial aid.

But as put by one of the translators bring yesterday’s challenge, willing
to give his name only as Rafi: ‘The conflict in Afghanistan was longer and more
dangerous than in Iraq – soldiers who served in both have told us this – and
yet we are being treated differently.’

The Afghan proposals, by contrast, could deny asylum to as many as
three-quarters of those translators who helped British troops in Afghanistan.

Rosa Curling, from Leigh Day, said after the ruling: ‘Our clients
are very disappointed. We hope that the Supreme Court will allow us to take
this legal fight forwards on behalf of these brave men.’

He is said to have killed
himself, not long after being threatened with deportation to Italy –government
officials hailing telltale evidence he was once fingerprinted there en hitch-hiking route to the country he also-gutsily served.

Their valiant efforts remain too-little supported in physical,
mental and financial back-up, but at least the sacrifice and heroism can reflect
on plenty of recognition and appreciation, glancingly at least.

The interpreters - without whom troops and officials could barely
make their useful way outside a patrol base, let alone understand and act upon
recon interceptions – could be said to put themselves in double danger.

Not only did they sign up with an incursive force, vulnerable to
any onslaughts, but also courageously pinpointed themselves to too many as
supposed traitors – with their families suffering similar lingering susceptibility
and stigma.

At least 21 translators have died on duty in Afghanistan since 2001
and supporters say at least five have been murdered while on leave.

An estimated 94 per cent of Afghan translators have received death
threats for their service, according to the Lib Dems whose former leader Lord
Ashdown has been pressing ministers to overhaul and expand the existing scheme.

Liberal Democrats leader Tim Farron said: ‘Britain owes these
people a massive debt of gratitude and the government must step up and help
those in need.

‘They put their lives at risk to serve alongside us and the least
we can do is protect them from persecution for that service.’

The Refugee Council’s policy manager Judith Dennis said: ‘The
government should focus on the fact that if a former interpreter’s life is in the
balance then it’s our duty to offer them safe haven, not to instead abandon
them to their fates because of a bureaucratic obsession about employment dates.

‘We urge the government to change its mind - it’s essential we
reciprocate the loyalty these interpreters showed to our forces by enabling
them to live safely and rebuild their lives in the UK.’

The Ministry of Defence insisted, mind: ‘We are pleased with this
judgment that confirms our redundancy scheme is fair and equitable.

‘All locally-employed staff who have worked alongside UK forces
remain eligible for support under our intimidation policy, including possible
relocation to the UK.’

The offer does at least promise a choice of relocation to Britain
on a five-year visa for those said to
have served ‘outside the wire’, training or education for five years or
a pay-off in monthly instalments worth 18 months’ wages.

MoD officials further suggested they were ‘disappointed’ by the
claimants’ vow to take the case to the Supreme Court.

The International Institute for
Strategic Studies last week told how 15,000 Afghans were killed in continuing
conflicts and terror attacks last year – with the Taliban more resurgent than
ever before 2001 and the West’s muddled but bravado-intoxicated intervention.